Now, you could drive those costs down, by extending a government guarantee to the P3 consortium.
This arguably pertains more to the federal Infrastructure Bank, although Ontario has an equivalent. Your point is an essential one though. The catch-all is always 'risk'.
The reason Douggie isn't biting is - I doubt he or his staff understand any of this. But then, neither does the electorate he is pitching to. It's so easy to make it all sound good - "we are giving all this to the private sector, because they know better and they are more disciplined with money". Which is absurd when you know the inside workings of big contracts, but it sells to the electorate.
Personally, I think ML's P3 strategy is as far reaching, and as potentially risky, as the Green Energy Act was... but I'm a transit nerd. I couldn't generate much interest in the topic around the family Easter dinner table, even after several bottles of wine, when the political discussion really got going.
I'm concerned with just how much decisionmaking power ML is contracting out.
The common theme to the above quotes is "oversight"...or lack of.
You could lease a tractor with the intention of buying it later. It might even have an option to include a driver and maintenance, but without it, your farm is toast. Is entering a contract on it a wise decision? It all depends on the contract, of course.
Most people really don't understand the nature of how public infrastructure delivery is changing. It is lost on the electorate, yet it isn't really that difficult a concept. The bottom line is that Gov't can almost always (in well managed nations, although even Greece seems to persevere) borrow money at a preferential rate as it will always be there to pay it. And it can issue bonds guaranteed by the taxpayer.
P3 is pretty much our only *practical* choice for large infrastructure projects moving forward. It is preferable to do it with "our own money" (Pension Plans et al) so that any investment pay-off benefit is returned to our own pockets, but again, in Ontario and Canada, this principle is not discussed as widely as it should be.
I just Googled to look for UK examples that went very wrong (transportation has quite a few, the London Underground being a glaring one), and ones that have gone right, and this jumped off the page, without even leaving Canada.
Even discussing how this is 'coming in under the radar' for most, I'm taken aback at the claim being made here:
“The Canadian P3 experience is very strong,” says Mark Romoff, president and CEO of the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships (CCPPP), a national not-for-profit organization established in 1993 to promote innovative approaches to infrastructure development and service delivery through public-private partnerships with all levels of government.
Increasingly, governments outside of Canada are recognizing Canada as “best in class when it comes to P3s,” says Romoff, also a former trade commissioner with Global Affairs Canada’s Canadian Trade Commissioner Service (TCS).
“We’re the gold standard,” he says, noting that Canadian companies looking to get involved in P3s can trade on the fact that Canada's expertise in this area is held in high regard. “Everyone in the world is looking at the Canadian model and seeing how they can adapt it to their countries, so they can enjoy similar success.”
Key characteristics of the Canadian P3 approach include the fact that the model is supported among political leaders, and it involves close collaboration between all levels of government, Romoff says. There is open competition in bidding for the projects—although the different consortia involved are short-listed to make the process manageable—and the process of choosing the winner is transparent and fair, he adds. There is also a “robust pipeline of projects.”
“Because we have such a portfolio of projects, we have developed a base of experience and an expertise that is marketable around the world,” Romoff says. “There is an opportunity to do things globally.”
[...]
http://tradecommissioner.gc.ca/canadexport/0001995.aspx?lang=eng
Errrr...that is outward investment they're discussing. And that brings in Desjardins-Siciliano's argument for funding HFR. But that then leads to Ontario's soliciting same for HSR, but 'wrapped' in completely different dialog. But as Paul mentions, (and this has increased in reference by magnitudes in the last few years) ML' as normal procedure now tenders on a P3 basis for all their latest projects.
I'm neither for nor against, I think it's inescapable to build what we need...*yesterday* let alone today, but it's the *obfuscation* in how it's being done that rankles.
